Climate Change

Colin Challen: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the statement by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe on 29 June 2005, Official Report, column 1376, what assessment her Department has made of the Pew Centre report on climate change.

Elliot Morley: The report I referred to is "International Climate Efforts Beyond 2012: A Survey of Approaches" by the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change which was published in December 2004. The report offers a broad survey of alternative approaches for international climate change efforts beyond 2012 and is therefore a useful background document.
	The report describes more than 40 proposals for a future climate change regime either published or publicly presented in recent years. Some of these proposals are comprehensive in nature, setting forth a complete approach for a future regime. Others address a particular issue in the negotiations.
	The report starts with a very useful overview of core issues in designing and negotiating future international climate efforts. The second section suggests criteria that could be used in assessing alternative approaches. The third section describes how the different proposals seek to address the core issues identified earlier. The fourth section then summarises each proposal. The report does not make judgments about individual proposals.

Cormorants

Angela Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish the Central Science Laboratory's cormorant population model; and whether the model will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Jim Knight: The cormorant model produced by the Central Science Laboratory is already available on the Defra website http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/piscivorous.htmcormorants together with comments from independent peer reviewers. The model is currently being updated in the light of more recent information on the trend in cormorant numbers following a short contract to The British Trust for Ornithology. A paper describing the model and its application will be submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal this autumn.

Nappies

Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion disposable nappies represented of total municipal solid waste in the last year for which figures are available; and what estimate she has made of the contribution the landfilling of disposable nappies made to the production of greenhouse gases by the UK in that year.

Ben Bradshaw: We do not collect information on the amount of disposable nappies used nor of the disposal route.
	The Strategy Unit report "Waste Not Want Not" estimated that in 2000–01 nappies comprised around 2 per cent. of household waste, equivalent to 350,000 tonnes. In 2003–04 72 per cent. of our household waste was sent to landfill and just under 9 per cent. went to incineration.
	The Environment Agency have estimated that disposable nappies contribute 0.02 per cent. to the production of greenhouse gases by the UK.

Waste Disposal

Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what mechanism is used to monitor compliance by EU member states with the (a) 2006, (b) 2009 and (c) 2016 biodegradable municipal waste diversion targets of Article 5 of the Landfill Directive; and what recent information she has received on the extent of compliance in each case.

Ben Bradshaw: The monitoring authorities in the four constituent countries of the UK will use a 'mass balance calculation' to monitor the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill in any year by each waste disposal authority. The mass balance approach calculates the amount of biodegradable waste landfilled by subtracting the weight of biodegradable materials diverted from landfill from the local authority's total biodegradable waste arisings.
	The Government are currently undertaking an information gathering project with the LGA and other local government stakeholders to assess the current and future diversion capacity in England. The information from this project will give a clear indication about how the targets are being met. The intention is to review this project annually, to allow the Government to closely monitor and evaluate progress towards the targets.
	Each EU member state is able to choose the mechanism to demonstrate compliance with Article 5(2) of the Landfill Directive and the UK is not aware of the methods chosen by other member states. I am not aware of any mechanism to monitor compliance prior to each target year.
	The details requested by the hon. Member on the extent of compliance by EU member states with Article 5(2) of the Landfill Directive has been published in the "Report from the Commission . . . on the national strategies for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste; reference COM(2005) 105 final". The report is available at http://www.wales.gov.uk/keypubassemeuropeancomm2/content/euleg050411/index-e.htm. In summary, Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the Flemish Region already fulfil the targets set by the directive or have already taken the necessary measures to fulfil them.

Waste Fats

John Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
	(1)  what measures the Government are taking to prevent the accumulation of fats, oil and grease in the sewerage system;
	(2)  what measures the Government are taking to prevent the discharge of fats, oil and grease in to drains by supermarkets and catering establishments;
	(3)  if she will make it her policy to require supermarkets and catering establishments to install grease retention equipment;
	(4)  what assessment she has made of the cost to water companies of clearing accumulated fats, oil and grease;
	(5)  how many prosecutions have taken place under the Water Act 2003 Section III (1) for the discharge of fats, oil and grease into the sewerage system.

Elliot Morley: Sewerage undertakers have powers to control and reduce discharges of fat and oil into sewers. It is an offence under section 111 of the 1991 Act for a person to empty into a sewer, or any drain or sewer connecting with a public sewer, matter which is likely to injure, cause a nuisance to, or interfere with the free flow of the sewer or drain's contents, or to affect the treatment and disposal of its contents.
	Sewerage undertakers are expected to take action where problems arise and to encourage appropriate preventative measures. In problem areas sewerage undertakers may work with local authority environmental health officers to identify suspect premises. In some areas there are voluntary schemes for installing grease control measures. At present there is no intention to require supermarkets and catering establishments to install grease retention equipment.
	The Government do not assess the cost of clearing accumulated fats, oil and grease separately from the overall costs of operating and maintaining sewers and sewage treatment works. The Office of Water Services reports on these overall costs in its annual 'Financial performance and expenditure of the water companies in England and Wales' report.
	My Department does not hold information on prosecutions under the Water Act Section III (1) for the discharge of fats, oil and grease into the sewerage system.

Bridge Strengthening (Costs)

Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what costs (a) have been and (b) are expected to be incurred in strengthening bridges by (i) the Highways Agency, (ii) Railtrack and (iii) local authorities to cater for the introduction of (A) 38 tonne, (B) 40 tonne and (C) 44 tonne lorries.

Stephen Ladyman: Strengthening bridges to carry 38 tonne and 44 tonne lorries is subsumed in strengthening to carry 40 tonne lorries with 11.5 tonne axle loads as this is more demanding in engineering terms.
	The Highways Agency has so far spent £590 million in strengthening motorway and trunk road bridges to carry 40 tonne lorries, and currently expects to spend a further £80 million before the programme is completed.
	There is no obligation on Network Rail (the successor to Railtrack) to strengthen its bridges carrying roads to accommodate 40 tonne lorries. If this carrying capacity was required, it would be for the local highway authority to provide the funding.
	The costs of local highway authorities in strengthening bridges to carry 40 tonne lorries are not collated centrally. However, since 2001 the Department for Transport has provided £147 million to local authorities in England outside London to strengthen bridges on their primary routes to take these vehicles. Local authorities bid for this funding on an annual basis through their annual progress reports on their local transport plans.

Crossrail

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the likely cost of the Crossrail project; what assessment has been made of the cost-effectiveness of the project; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: holding answer 7 July 2005
	The latest estimate of the cost of Crossrail is contained in the Estimate of Expense submitted with the Crossrail hybrid Bill. A review of the Crossrail project "Review of the Crossrail Business Case", which included an assessment of the costs and benefits of the project, was published by the Department for Transport in July 2004.
	Subsequent assessments have confirmed that the benefits of the project can be expected to outweigh the costs. The Department for Transport's latest assessment using its existing appraisal methodology is that the project would have a benefit to cost ratio of between 1.6:1 and 1.8:1.

Departmental Purchasing

Chris Grayling: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the companies from which his Department has purchased goods and services of a total value above £1 million in each of the last three years; and how much was spent in respect of each company.

John Healey: The information for the Treasury including the Debt Management Office is set out in the following table:
	
		
			£000 
			  2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 
		
		
			 Exchequer Partnership plc 10,139 19,020 19,328 
			 Partnerships UK plc 1,788 4,239 3,915 
			 Stationery Office Ltd. 1,529 1,918 (1)— 
			 Robson Associates 1,247 1,129 1,235 
			 Computacenter (UK) Ltd. (1)— (1)— 1,841 
			 Paymaster (1836) Ltd. (1)— (1)— 1,091 
		
	
	(1)Value of purchases in that year was less than £1 million.
	Notes:
	1. All figures are inclusive of VAT.
	2. The Treasury and the Debt Management Office have a combined accounts payable function so the figures include purchases by either body.

Earning (Tees Valley)

Vera Baird: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average weekly earnings is of a (a) male and (b) female full-time worker in (i) Tees Valley and (ii) the UK in the last period for which figures are available.

John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from Len Cook to Vera Baird, dated 14 July 2005
	As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what were the average weekly earnings of a (a) male and (b) female full-time worker in (i) Tees Valley and (ii) the UK. (11903)
	Average earnings are estimated from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings and are provided for employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was unaffected by absence during the pay period, by their place of work. This is the standard definition used for Annual Survey of Hours and Earning tables. The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings does not collect data on the self employed and people who do unpaid work.
	I attach a table showing the average gross weekly earnings for full-time employees in Tees Valley, the constituent Unitary Authorities of Tees Valley and the United Kingdom in 2004. The Unitary Authority and UK statistics are also available on the National Statistics website on table 7: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Product.asp?vlnk=13101
	The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, carried out in April of each year, is the most comprehensive source of earnings information in the United Kingdom. It has a one per cent. sample of all employees.
	
		Means and medians for full-time male and female employees in the United Kingdom, Tees Valley and unitary authoritiesin the Tees Valley area
		
			  Median CV (percentage)(2) Mean CV (percentage)(2) 
		
		
			 Male 
			 United Kingdom 462.0 0.2 556.8 0.3 
			 Tees Valley 426.8 4.2 496.6 3.0 
			 Darlington UA 413.6 9.4 459.8 5.3 
			 Hartlepool UA 372.7 15.0 472.5 9.6 
			 Middlesbrough UA 392.8 6.1 474.2 7.4 
			 Redcar and Cleveland UA 514.8 6.4 537.3 5.4 
			 Stockton-on-Tees UA 436.7 6.3 519.8 6.0 
			  
			 Female 
			 United Kingdom 358.0 0.4 420.2 0.3 
			 Tees Valley 306.1 4.9 354.0 3.8 
			 Darlington UA 321.5 8.7 339.1 4.9 
			 Hartlepool UA 250.2 15.0 286.9 10.0 
			 Middlesbrough UA 319.4 11.0 372.9 5.1 
			 Redcar and Cleveland UA 297.5 16.0 397.9 17.0 
			 Stockton-on-Tees UA 283.9 9.5 341.2 5.9 
		
	
	(2) Guide to quality:
	The Coefficient of Variation (CV) is given to indicate the quality of a figure, the smaller the CV value the higher the quality.
	The true value is likely to lie within +/- twice the CV e.g. for an average of 200 with a CV of 5 per cent. we would expect the population average to be within the range 180 to 220.
	Notes:
	1. The Annual purvey of Hours and Earnings, (ASHE), carried out in April of each year, is the most comprehensive source of earnings information in the United Kingdom. It is a 1 per cent. sample of all employees.
	2. The ASHE replaces the New Earnings Survey (NES) from October 2004. The main difference between the ASHE and NES being that estimates are weighted to population totals from the Labour Force Survey.
	3. Average gross weekly earnings for adult full-time employees whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence.
	Source:
	Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, ONS

Sickness Absence

David Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many days the Department has lost due to sickness in the past five years for which figures are available.

John Healey: The information on average working days sickness absence covering the years 1999 to 2003 for the Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs is available from the "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" published by the Cabinet Office. Table A of the report gives details of both the average working days absence per staff year and the number of staff years on which that calculation is based on. Reports for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 are also available in the Library and on the Cabinet Office website at:
	http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/management_information/conditions_of_service/caje/publications/index.aspsickness

Tax Credits

George Osborne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax credit awards were made to people with incomes in excess of (a) £50,000, (b) £52,500, (c) £55,000 and (d) £57,500 in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05; and if he will make a statement.

Dawn Primarolo: Estimates of the average number of tax credit awards broken down by income for 2003–04 awards is available in the HMRC publication "Child and Working Tax Credits Statistics. Finalised annual awards 2003–04." This publication can be found on the HMRC website at:
	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/cwtc-quarterly-stats.htm.
	Table 2.9 of this publication shows the average number of in-work benefiting families in each band of income used to taper awards In 2003–04, after taking into account their final family circumstances and income. This shows that there was an estimated average of 112,000 families with such incomes over £50,000, after taking into account the disregard.
	A further breakdown of incomes over £50,000 show that for 72,000 of these families the income was over £52,500, for 36,000 it was over £55,000 and for 7,000 it was over £57,500. These figures exclude families whose tax credits awards were tapered to zero. The relevant incomes have been measured net of the disregard of the first £2,500 increase over 2001–02 incomes.
	Statistics on finalised 2004–05 awards cannot be compiled until all families report their 2004–05 incomes; they are due to be published in May 2006.

Correspondence

Alex Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter dated 12 May from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding the subject of sex tourism.

Ian Pearson: holding answer 11 July 2005
	I replied to the hon. Member on 13 July. I apologise for the delay.

Ambulance Services

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will amend the targets for ambulance trusts to reflect clinical outcomes rather than vehicle response times.

Liam Byrne: The recently published review of ambulance services, "Taking Healthcare to the Patient: Transforming NHS Ambulance Services", recommends that while national performance requirements should continue to focus on speed of response for those patients with immediately life-threatening conditions, category A, national performance requirements for category B response times should over time be replaced by clinical and outcome indicators. This change should happen once the evidence base, technology and professional consensus are sufficiently developed to make this possible. Ministers have accepted these recommendations.
	"Taking Healthcare to the Patient: Transforming NHS Ambulance Services" is available in the Library.

Dentistry

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how many registered dentists were practising in the (a) County of Bedfordshire and (b) constituency of Mid-Bedfordshire in each year since 1997;
	(2)  how many full-time dentists there have been in the (a) county of Bedfordshire and (b) constituency of Mid-Bedfordshire in each year since 1997.

Rosie Winterton: Information relating to numbers of full-time dentists is not held centrally, as dentists can vary the amount of hours they work as well as their national health service commitment. The numbers of dentists in the county of Bedfordshire and the constituency of Mid-Bedfordshire, as at 31 March each year since 1997, are shown in the table.
	
		General dental service (GDS) and personal dental service (PDS) number of dentists in the specified areas as at 31 March each year
		
			  Parliamentary constituency: Mid-Bedfordshire  County: Bedfordshire 
		
		
			 1997 16 119 
			 1998 17 120 
			 1999 19 132 
			 2000 23 146 
			 2001 20 151 
			 2002 25 166 
			 2003 22 154 
			 2004 23 160 
			 2005 23 169 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. The figures are based on the numbers of dentists with open GDS or PDS contracts.
	2. The dentists include principals, assistants and trainees.
	3. Prison contracts have been excluded.
	4. The areas have been defined using practice postcodes within the specified area.
	5. The figures provide a snapshot of the number of individual dentists with an open contract at 31 March.
	6. A dentist with a GDS or PDS contract may provide as little or as much NHS treatment as he or she chooses or has agreed with the primary care trust (PCT). The Dental Practice Board has no information concerning the amount of time dedicated to NHS work by individual dentists.
	7. The Dental Practice Board has no information concerning the amount of time dedicated to NHS work by individual dentists.
	8. The figures take into account any notifications received up to 5 July 2005.
	9. Areas have been defined using the Office of National Statistics "All Fields Postcode Directory—November 2004"
	10. Figures have been provided by the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre. The data source is the Dental Practice Board and the figures are based on the numbers of individual dentists with open GDS or PDS contracts as at 31 March 2005.
	11. The postcode of the dental practice was used to allocate dentists to specific geographic areas. Specific geographic areas have been defined using the Office of National Statistics "All Fields Postcode Directory—November 2004".
	Source:
	Dental Practice Board

End of Life Decision Making

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how many times the Government have consulted on end of life decision-making since 1997;
	(2)  how many times her Department has consulted (a) formally and (b) informally on end of life decision making since 1997.

Rosie Winterton: The Government had extensive dialogue with a range of groups in respect to the passage of the Mental Capacity Act, which deals with, among other things, end of life decisions for those who lack capacity. As part of this work, the Department for Constitutional Affairs issued two formal consultation documents "Who Decides?—making decisions on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults" (1997) and "Making Decisions: Helping people who have difficulty for themselves" (2002). The consultations covered a range of issues and diverse comments were received in response to these.
	During the passage of the Mental Capacity Act and as part of regular policy dialogue, the Government receive a wide range of representations from a variety of stakeholders on end of life issues.

Hospital-acquired Infections

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the implications of initiatives to achieve greater throughput of patients on wards and in units for the spread of MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections.

Jane Kennedy: Controlling healthcare associated infections is complex and, as the national health service is treating more patients, this increased activity means that we need to work even harder to reduce the risk of infection.
	Implementing "Winning Ways: Working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England" (December 2003) and "Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection" (July 2004) will address these concerns. For instance on bed occupancy, chief executives are required to ensure that infection control teams work with bed managers to optimise bed use, assess the infection impact of bed management policies and implement changes to local policy to minimise the risk of infection.

Malnourishment

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the (a) number and (b) percentage of people (i) admitted to and (ii) discharged from hospital who were malnourished in each of the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by age; and if she will make a statement.

Caroline Flint: Information on numbers admitted is shown in tables 1 to 3.
	
		1: Finished in-year admission episodes to national health service hospitals in England where the patient' s main diagnosis was malnutrition, 1999–2000 to 2003–04
		
			 Age 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 
		
		
			 0–4 10 18 9 16 13 
			 5–14 6 5 3 4 3 
			 15–44 55 35 47 46 58 
			 45–64 65 50 50 69 61 
			 65–74 30 37 40 36 33 
			 75–84 42 36 46 44 48 
			 85 and over 25 28 38 26 32 
			 Not known — — 4 1 — 
			 Total 233 209 237 242 248 
		
	
	
		2: Total finished in-year admission episodes to NHS hospitals in England, 1999–2000 to 2003–04
		
			 Age 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 
		
		
			 0–4 1,139,850 1,112,999 1,110,269 1,086,383 1,122,920 
			 5–14 505,771 501,346 503,144 502,133 497,229 
			 15–44 3,654,812 3,651,228 3,546,442 3,593,471 3,730,027 
			 45–64 2,406,369 2,446,966 2,402,645 2,480,240 2,573,578 
			 65–74 1,503,423 1,522,896 1,498,519 1,543,585 1,616,827 
			 75–84 1,321,341 1,348,834 1,355,858 1,432,390 1,529,096 
			 85 and over 548,747 563,670 570,183 595,137 616,383 
			 Not known 35,837 58,587 53,731 34,377 29,744 
			 Total 11,116,150 11,206,526 11,040,791 11,267,716 11,715,804 
		
	
	
		3: Malnutrition cases per 100,000 finished in-year admission episodes, NHS hospitals in England, 1999–2000 to 2003–04
		
			 Age 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 
		
		
			 0–4 0.9 1.6 0.8 1.5 1.2 
			 5–14 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.6 
			 15–44 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.6 
			 45–64 2.7 2.0 2.1 2.8 2.4 
			 65–74 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.0 
			 75–84 3.2 2.7 3.4 3.1 3.1 
			 85 and over 4.6 5.0 6.7 4.4 5.2 
			 Not known — — 7.4 2.9 — 
			 Total 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 
		
	
	Information on numbers discharged is shown in tables 4 to 6.
	
		4: In-year discharge episodes from NHS hospitals in England where the patient's main diagnosis was malnutrition, 1999–2000 to 2003–04
		
			 Age 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 
		
		
			 0–4 11 18 9 16 13 
			 5–14 6 5 3 5 3 
			 15–44 55 37 49 46 58 
			 45–64 70 55 50 73 60 
			 65–74 32 43 44 42 34 
			 75–84 46 46 54 51 46 
			 85 and over 28 38 44 28 34 
			 Not known — — 4 2 — 
			 Total 248 242 257 263 248 
		
	
	
		5: Total in-year discharge episodes from NHS hospitals in England, 1999–2000 to 2003–04
		
			 Age 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 
		
		
			 0–4 1,148,890 1,118,540 1,118,885 1,093,996 1,130,883 
			 5–14 510,745 505,787 507,561 504,697 499,947 
			 15–44 3,696,750 3,698,665 3,591,473 3,633,192 3,771,729 
			 45–64 2,441,235 2,484,610 2,439,402 2,513,429 2,609,408 
			 65–74 1,532,063 1,554,291 1,528,904 1,570,343 1,645,021 
			 75–84 1,358,048 1,388,971 1,396,899 1,468,666 1,566,713 
			 85 and over 570,416 588,409 595,936 617,733 638,690 
			 Not known 31,982 59,116 54,595 34,953 29,922 
			 Total 11,290,129 11,398,389 11,233,655 11,437,009 11,892,313 
		
	
	
		6: Malnutrition cases per 100,000 in-year discharge episodes, NHS hospitals in England, 1999–2000 to 2003–04
		
			 Age 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 
		
		
			 0–4 1.0 1.6 0.8 1.5 1.1 
			 5–14 1.2 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.6 
			 15–44 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.5 
			 45–64 2.9 2.2 2.0 2.9 2.3 
			 65–74 2.1 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.1 
			 75–84 3.4 3.3 3.9 3.5 2.9 
			 85 and over 4.9 6.5 7.4 4.5 5.3 
			 Not known — — 7.3 5.7 — 
			 Total 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.1 
		
	
	Source:
	Hospital episode statistics, health and social care information centre.

NHS Financial Performance

Tim Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the (a) Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridge Strategic Health Authority, (b) Suffolk West Primary Care Trust and (c) West Suffolk Hospitals Trust first reported financial problems in West Suffolk to her Department.

Rosie Winterton: The Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic Health Authority and the West Suffolk Hospitals National Health Service Trust have recently reported a financial deficit in 2003–04. The Suffolk West Primary Care Trust reported a financial deficit in 2002–03.

Departmental Staff

David Davies: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many full-time equivalents have worked for the Department for each of the last five financial years for which figures are available.

Bridget Prentice: I refer the hon. Member to table C of Civil Service Statistics 2004 which is available on the internet at http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/management_information/statistical_information/statistics/publications/xls/report_2004/table_c.xls.
	This table shows the numbers of staff by Department and agency between 1998 and 2004, on a full-time equivalent basis. Copies of Civil Service Statistics are also available in the Library.

General Election (Internet)

Jimmy Hood: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment she has made of the role of the internet during the 2005 general election.

Harriet Harman: The Government have not undertaken an assessment of this area.
	However, outside government, there has been some research done into the use of the internet at the 2005 general election. The Hansard Society has recently published its report on this issue: "Spinning the web: online campaigning in the 2005 general election".

Postal Voting

Chris Ruane: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many convictions for postal ballot fraud there have been in each constituency in the UK for each of the past 10 years, listed in descending order; and if she will make a statement.

Harriet Harman: This information is not collected centrally. However, I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer on 13 June 2005, Official Report, column 181W, for information on the number of electoral fraud convictions since 1995. I am unaware of any convictions for postal ballot fraud in parliamentary elections; but there have been a very small number of convictions arising from fraud in local elections, in the order of one or two a year.

Sickness Absence

David Davies: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many days the Department has lost due to sickness for each of the last five financial years for which figures are available.

Bridget Prentice: The number of sickness absence days is recorded by the Department. The figures are contained in the annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" published by the Cabinet Office. Table A of the report gives details of both the average working days absence per staff year and the number of staff years on which that calculation is based on. The most recent of which (for calendar year 2003) was announced by ministerial statement on 1 November and copies placed in the Libraries of the House. Reports for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 are also available in the Library and on the Cabinet Office website at: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/managementjnformation/conditions_of_service/caje/publications/index.aspsickness.
	The Department is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and to putting in place recommendations of the recently published "Managing Sickness Absence in the Public Sector".

Equality Impact Assessments

Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what circumstances an equality impact assessment would not be conducted when (a) new policies and practices are introduced and (b) existing ones are revised.

David Hanson: To comply with their statutory equality duty under s75(l) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, public authorities are required to carry out equality screening, and if necessary equality impact assessment of policies, in accordance with their equality schemes and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland's "Guide to the Statutory Duties" which is available on the Commission's Website at www.equalityni.org . The results of screening would determine whether or not an equality impact assessment was considered necessary.

Correspondence

Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when he expects to reply to the letter to him dated 1 June from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. Michael Addie.

Hilary Benn: The letter of 1 June from my right hon. Friend for Manchester, Gorton, on behalf of his constituent Mr. Michael Addie was received in DFID on 10 June. A reply was issued on 12 July. I apologise for the delay.

Abductions

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were prosecuted for abduction in London in each year since 1997.

Fiona Mactaggart: Data from the Home Office Court Proceedings database on the number of people prosecuted for abduction in London, 1997 to 2003 is contained in the table.
	Statistics for 2004 court proceedings will be available in the autumn.
	
		Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for abduction or kidnapping in London, 1997 to 2003(8)(9)
		
			 Offence description Principal statute 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 
		
		
			 Abduction of children Child Abduction Act 1984 S.1 &2 as amended by the Children Act 1989 19 11 18 12 12 12 14 
			 Abduction of female having interest in property Sexual Offences Act 1956 S.1 7 (in part) — — 1 — — — — 
			 Abduction of female by force Sexual Offences Act 1956 S.1 7 (in part) 2 — 2 — — — — 
			 Abduction of unmarried girl under 16 Sexual Offences Act 1956 S.20 2 2 3 — — 3 1 
			 Abduction of unmarried girl under 18 Sexual Offences Act 1956 S.1 9 — — — — — — — 
			 Abduction of female defective Sexual Offences Act 1956 S.21 — — — — — — — 
			 Kidnapping Common Law 76 68 92 71 128 130 152 
		
	
	(8) These data are on the principal offence basis.
	(9) Includes Metropolitan and City of London police force areas.

Acceptable Behaviour Contracts

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how evidence is tested prior to the drafting of an acceptable behaviour contract;
	(2)  what sanctions apply in respect of an acceptable behaviour contract if the conditions are breached.
	(3)  what rights the recipient of an acceptable behaviour contract has to challenge the evidence on which the contract was based.

Hazel Blears: An acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) is agreed and signed at a meeting with the individual involved in the antisocial behaviour and one or more lead agencies. This meeting should be used as an opportunity for the individual and his or her family (if the individual involved is a young person) to discuss the impact their behaviour has had on others. The meeting may also be used as an opportunity to challenge any evidence put forward in support of making the ABC. ABCs are not statutory orders and therefore it is for local authorities to decide details such as what evidence may be used to support an ABC and how this evidence is tested. Our publication "A guide to antisocial behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contracts" provides guidelines on ABCs for local authorities.
	Breach of an ABC is not a criminal offence but should be taken seriously. The action taken is a matter for local authorities and should be determined by the nature of the breach.

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

Cheryl Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what evidence his Department has evaluated on the effects of antisocial behaviour orders on individuals with a disability;
	(2)  what advice has been given to (a) courts, (b) the police and (c) local authorities on the effects of issuing an antisocial behaviour order to an individual with a disability.

Hazel Blears: Our publications "A guide to anti-social behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contracts" and "Guidance on publicising antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs)" together with information provided by our TOGETHER website and Action Line, provides comprehensive guidance for all practitioners, including courts, police authorities and local authorities.
	This guidance sets out that, where an individual has a known or suspected disability, a needs assessment should always be carried out. In addition, the courts and practitioners are familiar with disability discrimination legislation which provides a general safeguard when taking court action against an individual that has a disability.
	We have not received any evidence to suggest that ASBOs may disproportionately affect individuals with a disability.

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an individual's physical or mental condition which affects their ability to carry out normal day-to-day actions is taken into account by (a) courts, (b) local authorities and (c) the police when deciding whether to apply for an antisocial behaviour order; and whether any antisocial behaviour orders have been (i) applied for and (ii) granted in respect of individuals.

Hazel Blears: Our publications "A guide to antisocial behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contracts" and "Guidance on publicising antisocial behaviour orders" together with information provided by our TOGETHER website and Action Line, provides comprehensive guidance for all practitioners, including courts, police authorities and local authorities.
	This guidance sets out that, where an individual has mental health problems or a known or suspected disability, a needs assessment should always be carried out. In addition, the courts and practitioners are familiar with disability discrimination legislation which provides a general safeguard when taking court action against an individual that has a disability.
	Information is not collected centrally about the characteristics or circumstances of persons issued with an antisocial behaviour order.

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he expects that the civil renewal strategy will impact on applications for antisocial behaviour orders.

Hazel Blears: The Government's plan for civil renewal, "Together We Can", is about empowering citizens to work with public bodies to set and achieve common goals. It will encourage more citizens to work with local agencies to obtain antisocial behaviour orders to tackle persistent problems where that is appropriate, and also involve more local people in developing strategies and activities for positive community action to help conflict resolution and youth inclusion. In providing co-operative and restorative options to deal with potential antagonism between citizens, the plan will contribute to the reduction of the level of antisocial behaviour and the need for antisocial behaviour orders.

Asylum/Immigration

Jimmy Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants have been deported since January 2005 in (a) the UK and (b) Scotland.

Tony McNulty: Information on people removed from within Scotland would not be available, except by examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.
	Statistics on the number of illegal entrants who are removed from the UK are published in the annual "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom". Information for 2005 is not scheduled to be published until the summer of 2006.
	Information on the number of asylum seekers removed from the UK is published every quarter on the Home Office website at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
	The latest available figure cover the first quarter of 2005. Statistics for the second quarter of 2005 will be published in August.

Drunk and Disorderly Prosecutions

Ben Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many prosecutions were made for the offence of being drunk and disorderly in Lancashire in each year between 1985 and 2005;
	(2)  how many arrests for offences involving drinking and disorderly behaviour have taken place in (a) Lancaster and Wyre and (b) Lancashire in each year since 1997; to which custody suite arrestees were taken; and how many cases subsequently went to magistrates court.

Hazel Blears: The information contained in the table gives the number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for "being guilty while drunk of disorderly behaviour", Lancashire police force area 1985 to 2003.
	Statistics on court proceedings for 2004 will be published in the autumn.
	The penalty notice for disorder scheme (PNDs) provides for persons who commit specified penalty offences to be issued with a fixed penalty notice instead of being prosecuted. The number of persons issued with a penalty notice for "being guilty while drunk of disorderly behaviour", Lancashire police force area is:
	
		
			  Number 
		
		
			 2004 2,869 
			 2005 (January to May) 1,752 
		
	
	The information requested on arrests is not available centrally.
	
		Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for "being guilty while drunk of disorderly behaviour"(14), Lancashire police force area 1985 to 2003
		
			  Proceeded against 
		
		
			 1985 1,746 
			 1986 1,556 
			 1987 1,697 
			 1988 1,459 
			 1989 1,169 
			 1990 1,106 
			 1991 906 
			 1992 848 
			 1993 622 
			 1994 732 
			 1995 922 
			 1996 1,231 
			 1997 1,618 
			 1998 1,673 
			 1999 1,827 
			 2000 2,165 
			 2001 2,366 
			 2002 2,210 
			 2003 2,180 
		
	
	(14) These data are on the principal offence basis.

Parliamentary Questions

Humfrey Malins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to question reference 4785 tabled by the hon. Member for Woking.

Hazel Blears: I replied to the hon. Member on 12 July 2005.

Police

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to monitor the recruitment and retention of transsexual police officers.

Hazel Blears: The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables transsexual people who have taken decisive steps to live fully and permanently in their acquired gender to apply for legal recognition of that gender.
	Police recruitment and other employment monitoring data is recorded and monitored in terms of male or female gender. We have no plans to monitor the recruitment and retention of transsexual police officers.

Prisons

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the projected prison population in England and Wales is in (a) 2006, (b) 2007, (c) 2008 and (d) 2009.

Fiona Mactaggart: The latest prison population projections are published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 01/05 "Prison Population Projections, 2005–2011, England and Wales". Figures for the years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 for 10 scenarios can be found in this document. The scenarios range from 'High' to 'Low'. Projected total prison population figures (corresponding to end of June) for High and Low scenarios for the relevant years are presented in the table.
	
		
			  High scenario Low scenario 
		
		
			 2006 78,060 74,720 
			 2007 82,140 76,190 
			 2008 84,300 76,970 
			 2009 86,190 76,590

Prostitution

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were (a) arrested and (b) successfully prosecuted for (i) kerb-crawling, (ii) prostitution and (iii) running a brothel in each London borough in each of the last five years.

Fiona Mactaggart: The information requested on arrests is not available centrally. Information on arrests collected centrally is based on persons arrested for "notifiable" offences by main offence group (i.e. sexual offences, violence against the person and burglary etc) and at police force area only and therefore does not identify individual offences nor constituency areas or local authorities.
	The information requested for successful prosecutions for kerb-crawling, prostitution and running a brothel is attached table which has also been placed in the Library.

Young Offenders

Humfrey Malins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours on average were spent per week by prisoners at each young offender institution on (a) education and (b) sport in the last period for which figures are available.

Fiona Mactaggart: The following table shows the average number of hours that young offenders spent specifically on education in 2004–05. Information on time spent by young offenders in sport is not collected separately but is captured under the general heading of "other purposeful activity".
	
		
			 Establishment name Education hours (weekly average) 
		
		
			 Ashfield 18.3 
			 Aylesbury 6.2 
			 Brinsford 11.3 
			 Castington 14.6 
			 Coldingley 11.6 
			 Deerbolt 12.3 
			 Feltham 10.6 
			 Glen Parva 6.4 
			 Huntercombe 13.4 
			 Lancaster Farms 14.0 
			 Northallerton 11.5 
			 Onley 10.2 
			 Portland 7.4 
			 Reading 8.1 
			 Rochester 9.1 
			 Stoke Heath 8.6 
			 Swinfen Hall 11.8 
			 Thorn Cross (Open) 19.6 
			 Warren Hill 14.4 
			 Werrington 21.9 
			 Wetherby 12.2 
			 Young Offenders Estate Average 12.1

Young Offenders

Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of children released from young offender institutions were provided with accommodation in the last year for which figures are available.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Youth Justice Board sets youth offending teams a key performance indicator of ensuring that all young people serving custodial sentences have suitable accommodation to go to on release.
	"Suitable accommodation" means accommodation which, so far as is reasonably practicable, meets the needs of the young person, including health needs and any arising from disability. The youth offending team should satisfy itself as to the character and suitability of the landlord or other provider; and, so far as is reasonably practicable, take into account the young person's wishes and feelings, and education, training or employment needs.
	85.5 per cent. of young people who completed a custodial term in 2004–05 went to suitable accommodation on release.

Examination Standards

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will take steps to make GCSEs and A levels more challenging.

Ruth Kelly: Our White Paper, "14–19 Education and Skills" sets out our proposals to strengthen GCSEs and A levels.
	We will restructure English and maths GCSEs to ensure that students cannot get a grade C or better without passing a functional skills unit.
	At A level we will introduce a new section in papers covering Advanced Extension Award type material and an Extended Project requiring a high degree of planning, preparation, research and autonomous working.

Special Schools

Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to review her policy on special schools.

Beverley Hughes: "Removing Barriers to Achievement", our SEN strategy, already provides a clear vision for improving support and outcomes for children with SEN. It sets out action to ensure that children with SEN receive the help they need as quickly as possible, from schools and other services.
	The SEN strategy was informed by a review of special schools. Special schools have a vital role teaching children with the most severe and complex needs, and sharing expertise with mainstream schools.

Education and Skills White Paper

Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills What representations she has received on the Government's 14 to 19 White Paper.

Ruth Kelly: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Croydon Central.

Key Stage Literacy Standards

Michael Jabez Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of standards of literacy in primary schools.

Jacqui Smith: Primary schools, supported by the National Literacy Strategy, have the highest standards of literacy ever. In 2004 78 per cent. of 11-year-olds reached the target level 4 of the National Curriculum in the Key Stage 2 English tests, an increase of 15 percentage points since 1997.
	In the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study published in 2003, England's 10-year-olds achieved the third highest scores in reading of the 35 countries which took part.

Pupil Mobility

Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  what assessment she has made of the merits of targeting funding to schools or local education authorities with high levels of pupil mobility;
	(2)  what representations she has received from (a) teachers' bodies, (b) local education authorities and (c) individual teachers on the effect of high levels of pupil mobility on teachers;
	(3)  what assessment her Department has made of the costs to schools of high levels of pupil mobility;
	(4)  what assessment her Department has made of the impact of high levels of pupil mobility on other children within affected schools;
	(5)  what assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of value added measures of school performance in reflecting the work of schools with high levels of pupil mobility;
	(6)  what pupil mobility rates were in each education authority in England in the last period for which figures are available;
	(7)  what information her Department collects about pupil mobility at individual school level.

Jacqui Smith: We have been considering with our education partners, including representatives of head teachers and local authorities, whether there should be a mobility factor in the national school funding distribution formula, because of schools in some areas facing higher levels of pupil turnover than in others. We expect to announce our decisions on this issue soon. Local authorities are already allowed to take account of mobility in their funding formulae for schools.
	This work has not included consideration of the costs to schools of high levels of pupil mobility or the impact of pupil mobility on other children in affected schools. We have not commissioned any research looking specifically at the impact of pupil mobility on others, but we did commission a research study "Pupil Mobility in Schools—Dobson et al 1999—DfEE research report number 168" which investigated the general issue of pupil mobility.
	In the current primary school achievement and attainment tables, a mobility indicator is provided alongside each school's value added measure. This provides context for the value added measure by showing the extent to which pupils eligible for the key stage 2 tests were not in the school for the whole of their key stage 2 education.
	In the secondary tables, a pilot of "contextual value added" is taking place in 2005. This will directly take account of a range of contextual factors which are outside the school's control and which are correlated with outcomes even after taking account of prior attainment. Mobility will be one of the factors included, since pupils who move between schools outside of normal transitions make lower progress than non-mobile pupils. A similar pilot is planned for primary schools in 2006.
	The Department does not collect information from individual schools that is specifically about pupil mobility. However pupils' dates of entry to schools are collected as part of the Pupil Level Annual Schools census. Based upon these dates of entry various mobility rates can be calculated depending upon the definition used.
	The Department published a school level mobility indicator as part of the 2004 Primary School (Key Stage 2) Achievement and Attainment Tables.
	This indicator shows the percentage of pupils who were registered at the school for their entire key stage 2 education. However, this indicator has not been defined or calculated at LEA level.

School Meals

Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  if she will provide guidance to schools on the method of allocation of the extra funding for school meals announced by the Government in March in time for schools to make adequate plans for the school year beginning in September;
	(2)  what proportion of the extra funding for school meals of £240 million over three years will be directly available to schools to improve the food quality of school meals.

Jacqui Smith: Over the three years 2005–06 to 2007–08, all maintained schools in England will receive a share of the £220 million set aside to help local education authorities and schools strengthen their support for healthy eating and to provide better quality food. Of this, £30 million each year will go to schools to help meet transitional costs involved in developing and improving their "whole school" approach to food. £30/50/50 million will go to LEAs to enable them to support schools with this process, with an emphasis on schools in deprived areas and schools starting from a low base.
	The first instalment of this additional funding will be available to schools and LEAs this autumn. Further details about the distribution of both grants between individual local authorities and schools will be announced shortly.

Schools (Violence)

Edward Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of (a) children and (b) teachers who were victims of bullying in schools in (i) London and (ii) England in 2004–05.

Jacqui Smith: Data on bullying among children is not collected centrally and there is no reliable basis for an estimate of prevalence. Bullying cases appear to be reported more often now than previously but we have no hard evidence that bullying is increasing or that it is affecting more children. Indeed, as children and young people increasingly feel safe at school to report bullying, and confident that it will be tackled effectively and sensitively, it is likely reporting will rise.
	However, any level of bullying is too high and we are determined to help schools tackle the problem. Our guidance pack "Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence," the anti-bullying Charter and the anti-bullying website www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying offer detailed advice on preventing and addressing bullying. We also offer specific advice to schools on tackling homophobic and racist bullying.
	We have raised awareness of the importance of children who are being bullied telling an adult about what is happening, through our public information film "Tell Someone" and our leaflets and postcards for children and their parents. Our recent "Beat Bullying" blue wristband campaign was launched in partnership with Radio One, during the first national anti bullying week in November 2004. By the end of December, 1 million children and young people had answered our call to "Make a Stand, Wear a Band" and make a visible commitment that they are not prepared to tolerate bullying and will stand by their friends.
	Data on bullying among teachers is not collected centrally as we do not employ teachers and other school staff directly. Similarly, there is no reliable basis for an estimate of prevalence.

Secondary School Teachers (Early Retirement)

Robert Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost of the early retirement scheme for teachers in secondary schools on grounds of ill-health was in the last eight years in each local education authority.

Jacqui Smith: The available information is in the following table. This shows the number and annual value of pension payment award at the time of retirement made on grounds of ill-health in the maintained secondary sector in England.
	
		New awards and total amount of pension awarded(28) to teachers in the secondary sector on the grounds of ill health(29) for the last eight financial years by local education authority
		
			  Ill health retirements(29)—secondary sector in England 
			  1996–97  1997–98  1998–99  1999–2000 
			  New awards Total amount of pension awarded(28) (£000) New awards Total amount of pension awarded(28) (£000) New awards Total amount of pension awarded(28) (£000) New awards Total amount of pension awarded(28) (£000) 
		
		
			 North East 
			 Gateshead 10 83 10 96 (30)— (30)— 7 78 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 13 105 10 94 11 95 13 131 
			 North Tyneside 10 83 5 42 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 South Tyneside 9 69 14 109 6 42 (30)— (30)— 
			 Sunderland 23 186 16 153 6 43 8 76 
			 Hartlepool (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Middlesbrough 19 136 6 47 10 89 6 47 
			 Redcar and Cleveland 11 86 9 67 (30)— (30)— 7 81 
			 Stockton on Tees 8 66 12 105 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Former Durham 35 295 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Darlington (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Durham (post 1 April 1997) (31)— (31)— 19 184 16 145 13 127 
			 Northumberland 10 90 11 101 12 116 (30)— (30)— 
			  
			 North West 
			 Cumbria 22 172 19 149 12 89 16 137 
			 Former Cheshire 38 344 20 178 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Cheshire (post 1 April 1998) (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 9 83 7 92 
			 Halton (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Warrington (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Bolton 16 148 14 149 (30)— (30)— 5 43 
			 Bury 15 141 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Manchester 24 207 12 106 16 135 10 89 
			 Oldham 24 214 7 64 5 56 (30)— (30)— 
			 Rochdale 9 59 7 71 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Salford 16 130 6 65 8 65 (30)— (30)— 
			 Stockport 11 75 11 115 6 66 0 0 
			 Tameside 5 35 7 56 (30)— (30)— 5 54 
			 Trafford 14 129 5 43 (30)— (30)— 9 76 
			 Wigan 13 101 11 87 9 87 7 58 
			 Former Lancashire 70 527 46 350 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Lancashire (post 1 April 1998) (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 18 148 26 240 
			 Blackburn with Darwen (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Blackpool (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— 6 58 
			 Knowsley 6 48 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Liverpool 24 193 14 120 6 53 10 89 
			 St. Helens 15 126 13 110 5 41 5 53 
			 Sefton 16 132 16 109 8 68 (30)— (30)— 
			 Wirral 16 116 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 11 130 
			  
			 Yorkshire and the Humber 
			 City of Kingston Upon Hull 19 130 9 67 5 49 6 60 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 17 144 10 66 (30)— (30)— 10 86 
			 North East Lincolnshire 15 137 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 North Lincolnshire 6 51 10 86 9 94 8 77 
			 North Yorkshire (post 1 April 1996)27 231 13 107 (30)— (30)— 12 132 
			 York 8 60 (30)— (30)— 6 48 5 53 
			 Barnsley 14 121 (30)— (30)— 7 77 8 69 
			 Doncaster 13 111 8 69 0 0 5 42 
			 Rotherham 11 88 11 80 0 0 5 37 
			 Sheffield 23 183 11 91 15 142 19 166 
			 Bradford 38 292 21 186 12 106 13 106 
			 Calderdale 8 73 11 79 (30)— (30)— 6 51 
			 Kirklees 23 213 16 124 15 137 9 87 
			 Leeds 26 226 19 160 8 66 18 187 
			 Wakefield 11 76 (30)— (30)— 10 119 5 36 
			  
			 East Midlands 
			 Former Derbyshire 24 183 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Derbyshire (post 1 April 1997) (31)— (31)— 15 137 11 108 13 109 
			 Derby (31)— (31)— 7 58 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Former Leicestershire 32 284 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Leicestershire (post 1 April 1997) (31)— (31)— 16 125 9 77 20 188 
			 Leicester (31)— (31)— 9 73 5 48 7 69 
			 Rutland (31)— (31)— 0 0 (30)— (31)— 0 0 
			 Lincolnshire 33 233 14 120 15 113 13 129 
			 Northamptonshire 36 286 25 208 16 121 10 90 
			 Former Nottinghamshire 45 391 36 288 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Nottinghamshire (post 1 April 1998)(31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 24 207 19 169 
			 Nottingham (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 5 48 (30)— (30)— 
			  
			 West Midlands 
			 Former Hereford and Worcester 41 365 15 130 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Herefordshire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Worcestershire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 9 85 11 94 
			 Former Shropshire 16 141 13 124 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Shropshire (post 1 April 1998) (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 6 62 (30)— (30)— 
			 Telford and Wrekin (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Former Staffordshire 28 248 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Staffordshire (post 1 April 1997) (31)— (31)— 20 172 17 128 13 137 
			 Stoke on Trent (31)— (31)— 6 52 (30)— (30)— 12 135 
			 Warwickshire 16 122 14 117 11 106 10 95 
			 Birmingham 46 383 31 258 28 259 34 314 
			 Coventry 17 134 7 64 11 101 10 81 
			 Dudley 9 67 11 80 12 116 5 49 
			 Sandwell 13 119 8 75 (30)— (30)— 8 67 
			 Solihull 17 137 7 42 8 76 (30)— (30)— 
			 Walsall 18 148 6 50 (30)— (30)— 9 76 
			 Wolverhampton 14 102 14 113 7 101 5 43 
			  
			 East of England 
			 Former Cambridgeshire 18 150 14 114 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Cambridgeshire (post 1 April 1998)(31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 5 47 8 74 
			 Peterborough (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Norfolk 29 267 19 168 20 182 21 160 
			 Suffolk 30 241 18 187 30 282 16 145 
			 Former Bedfordshire 15 128 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Bedfordshire (post 1 April 1997) (31)— (31)— 6 56 13 78 5 32 
			 Luton (31)— (31)— 5 41 5 46 (30)— (30)— 
			 Former Essex 46 380 20 203 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Essex (post 1 April 1998) (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 12 126 15 185 
			 Southend on Sea (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Thurrock (30)— 21 0 0 0 0 (30)— (30)— 
			 Hertfordshire 39 347 20 166 14 128 23 200 
			  
			 London 
			 City of London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Camden 6 53 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Greenwich (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Hackney (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 6 46 6 69 0 0 (30)— (30)— 
			 Islington (30)— (30)— 6 48 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Kensington and Chelsea (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 0 0 
			 Lambeth (30)— (30)— 7 54 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Lewisham 11 99 5 53 6 55 6 53 
			 Southwark (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Tower Hamlets 5 33 5 56 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Wandsworth (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 0 0 (30)— (30)— 
			 City of Westminster (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 0 0 
			 Barking and Dagenham (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Barnet 6 68 6 52 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Bexley 5 41 (30)— (30)— 6 74 (30)— (30)— 
			 Brent 8 68 6 53 5 53 (30)— (30)— 
			 Bromley 11 91 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Croydon 6 58 7 65 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Ealing (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Enfield 12 85 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 6 57 
			 Haringey 10 104 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Harrow 6 45 (30)— (30)— 0 0 (30)— (30)— 
			 Havering 9 83 7 58 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Hillingdon (30)— (30)— 6 39 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Hounslow 9 67 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 5 36 
			 Kingston upon Thames (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Merton 7 97 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Newham 10 96 5 43 5 37 8 105 
			 Redbridge (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Richmond upon Thames (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Sutton 6 66 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Waltham Forest 8 64 7 60 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			  
			 South East 
			 Former Berkshire (post 1 April 1998)17 120 15 155 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Bracknell Forest (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— 0 0 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 West Berkshire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Reading (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 0 0 (30)— (30)— 
			 Slough (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— 5 31 
			 Wokingham (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— 0 0 
			 Former Buckinghamshire 24 230 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Buckinghamshire (post 1 April 1997)(31)— (31)— 10 70 5 50 5 65 
			 Milton Keynes (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Former East Sussex 21 186 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 East Sussex (post 1 April 1997) (31)— (31)— 13 101 10 88 7 52 
			 Brighton and Hove (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Former Hampshire 56 479 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Hampshire (post 1 April 1997) (31)— (31)— 20 181 18 219 25 261 
			 Portsmouth (31)— (31)— 6 51 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Southampton (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— 11 86 8 81 
			 Isle of Wight 10 71 5 42 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Former Kent 52 403 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Kent (post 1 April 1998) (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— 22 239 24 229 
			 Medway (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 5 39 
			 Oxfordshire 23 188 11 91 13 117 10 93 
			 Surrey 32 291 20 154 13 123 9 78 
			 West Sussex 30 225 15 118 8 61 9 70 
			  
			 South West 
			 Isles of Scilly 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Bath and North East Somerset (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 City of Bristol 8 69 11 92 5 46 (30)— (30)— 
			 North Somerset (30)— (30)— 6 59 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 South Gloucestershire 10 83 6 67 5 41 (30)— (30)— 
			 Cornwall 31 227 20 170 8 60 25 214 
			 Former Devon 37 344 38 327 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Devon (post 1 April 1998) (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 13 131 14 120 
			 Plymouth (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 7 63 (30)— (30)— 
			 Torbay (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— 6 66 
			 Former Dorset 38 305 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Dorset (post 1 April 1997) (31)— (31)— 5 42 6 49 9 87 
			 Poole (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Bournemouth (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 6 63 (30)— (30)— 
			 Gloucestershire 28 211 12 66 10 90 6 49 
			 Somerset 24 201 14 138 10 107 12 112 
			 Former Wiltshire 25 221 (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Wiltshire (post 1 April 1997) (31)— (31)— 5 44 (30)— (30)— 13 132 
			 Swindon (31)— (31)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 England 2,002 16,662 1,239 10,617 928 8,517 971 9,086 
		
	
	
		
			  2000–01  2001–02  2002–03  2003–04 
			  New awards Total amount of pension awarded(28) (£000) New awards Total amount of pension awarded(28) (£000) New awards Total amount of pension awarded(28) (£000) New awards Total amount of pension awarded(28) (£000) 
		
		
			 North East 
			 Gateshead (30)— (30)— 6 57 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 10 123 11 139 7 79 6 59 
			  5 49 7 78 11 146 (30)— (30)— 
			 South Tyneside 6 75 (30)— (30)— 8 113 5 58 
			 Sunderland 9 92 8 107 5 57 8 98 
			 Hartlepool (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 0 0 (30)— (30)— 
			 Middlesbrough (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 12 141 (30)— (30)— 
			 Redcar and Cleveland 10 123 5 63 8 99 8 109 
			 Stockton on Tees 6 63 11 116 9 105 (30)— (30)— 
			 Former Durham (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Darlington (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 6 77 
			 Durham (post 1 April 1997) 15 145 14 154 10 125 15 239 
			 Northumberland 7 60 7 72 11 105 11 129 
			  
			 North West 
			 Cumbria 16 153 17 165 11 151 11 128 
			 Former Cheshire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Cheshire (post 1 April 1998) 14 178 16 169 15 203 18 236 
			 Halton 0 0 7 94 (30)— (30)— 8 123 
			 Warrington (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 9 121 6 77 
			 Bolton 10 116 7 78 8 76 6 83 
			 Bury 8 77 (30)— (30)— 7 80 (30)— (30)— 
			 Manchester 15 172 11 96 10 149 7 76 
			 Oldham 6 59 6 84 6 86 (30)— (30)— 
			 Rochdale (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 7 86 (30)— (30)— 
			 Salford 9 77 7 78 9 97 5 75 
			 Stockport 7 83 8 84 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Tameside 5 57 7 75 (30)— (30)— 5 50 
			 Trafford 12 125 5 68 5 70 5 58 
			 Wigan 8 108 13 132 8 102 (30)— (30)— 
			 Former Lancashire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Lancashire (post 1 April 1998) 36 369 30 321 36 441 27 325 
			 Blackburn with Darwen 6 77 5 45 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Blackpool 5 48 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 5 69 
			 Knowsley 7 79 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 6 82 
			 Liverpool 9 93 17 197 9 106 7 100 
			 St. Helens (30)— (30)— 6 74 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Sefton 7 81 (30)— (30)— 9 144 10 129 
			 Wirral 6 50 11 133 9 106 9 109 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber 
			 City of Kingston Upon Hull 9 97 6 56 5 58 (30)— (30)— 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 8 80 6 76 9 87 5 85 
			 North East Lincolnshire 5 60 (30)— (30)— 5 58 6 57 
			 North Lincolnshire (30)— (30)— 6 57 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 North Yorkshire (post 1 April 1996)20 199 29 308 14 167 9 101 
			 York 7 56 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 0 0 
			 Barnsley 9 88 6 69 11 152 10 118 
			 Doncaster 7 77 5 63 9 105 (30)— (30)— 
			 Rotherham 10 99 6 50 7 85 11 147 
			 Sheffield 15 157 8 90 7 73 8 112 
			 Bradford 18 144 19 223 21 222 22 264 
			 Calderdale (30)— (30)— 5 57 6 50 (30)— (30)— 
			 Kirklees 11 108 26 293 14 161 13 165 
			 Leeds 27 279 23 255 28 312 26 348 
			 Wakefield 9 98 11 120 11 118 11 149 
			  
			 East Midlands 
			 Former Derbyshire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Derbyshire (post 1 April 1997) 15 134 12 177 15 166 15 195 
			 Derby 6 60 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 5 81 
			 Former Leicestershire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Leicestershire (post 1 April 1997) 9 86 12 132 7 77 16 200 
			 Leicester 9 98 5 51 6 55 5 50 
			 Rutland 0 0 (30)— (30)— 0 0 0 0 
			 Lincolnshire 10 78 14 144 12 147 14 145 
			 Northamptonshire 22 217 20 207 8 81 12 142 
			 Former Nottinghamshire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Nottinghamshire (post 1 April 1998)22 235 22 255 18 188 22 318 
			 Nottingham 8 85 (30)— (30)— 7 65 8 103 
			  
			 West Midlands 
			 Former Hereford and Worcester (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Herefordshire 5 52 (30)— (30)— 5 47 (30)— (30)— 
			 Worcestershire 17 175 10 106 14 169 8 104 
			 Former Shropshire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Shropshire (post 1 April 1998) 5 56 (30)— (30)— 6 60 (30)— (30)— 
			 Telford and Wrekin (30)— 24 6 62 (30)— (30)— 9 112 
			 Former Staffordshire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Staffordshire (post 1 April 1997) 27 296 27 276 31 375 13 171 
			 Stoke on Trent 10 102 9 100 6 68 (30)— (30)— 
			 Warwickshire 5 57 16 141 9 91 5 63 
			 Birmingham 29 314 26 296 21 274 19 257 
			 Coventry 10 91 7 84 (30)— (30)— 6 67 
			 Dudley 10 83 10 97 8 91 (30)— (30)— 
			 Sandwell 8 98 8 66 8 101 9 127 
			 Solihull (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 5 61 9 107 
			 Walsall (30)— (30)— 5 64 6 78 9 103 
			 Wolverhampton (30)— (30)— 7 76 8 102 (30)— (30)— 
			  
			 East of England 
			 Former Cambridgeshire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Cambridgeshire (post 1 April 1998)10 79 9 107 6 60 11 140 
			 Peterborough 5 44 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Norfolk 19 165 28 312 17 214 13 144 
			 Suffolk 20 217 29 322 17 174 13 171 
			 Former Bedfordshire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Bedfordshire (post 1 April 1997) 10 94 7 79 7 74 (30)— (30)— 
			 Luton 5 55 0 0 5 61 (30)— (30)— 
			 Former Essex (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Essex (post 1 April 1998) 31 294 18 164 12 134 13 169 
			 Southend on Sea 5 44 5 47 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Thurrock (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Hertfordshire 15 129 20 215 18 193 17 218 
			  
			 London 
			 City of London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Camden (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Greenwich (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Hackney 5 64 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 0 0 
			 Islington (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Kensington and Chelsea (30)— (30)— 0 0 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Lambeth (30)— (30)— 0 0 0 0 (30)— (30)— 
			 Lewisham (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 7 85 (30)— (30)— 
			 Southwark 6 53 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 0 0 
			 Tower Hamlets 6 72 7 55 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Wandsworth (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 8 108 
			 City of Westminster (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Barking and Dagenham (30)— (30)— 0 0 5 82 (30)— (30)— 
			 Barnet (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 6 75 
			 Bexley 5 44 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Brent (30)— (30)— 8 91 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Bromley 6 66 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 7 97 
			 Croydon (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 7 74 
			 Ealing (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 5 44 (30)— (30)— 
			 Enfield (30)— (30)— 7 79 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Haringey (30)— (30)— 6 52 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Harrow (30)— (30)— 0 0 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Havering 7 58 5 40 (30)— (30)— 5 87 
			 Hillingdon (30)— (30)— 8 72 0 0 5 59 
			 Hounslow (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Kingston upon Thames (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 5 65 0 0 
			 Merton (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Newham 7 64 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Redbridge (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 7 91 
			 Richmond upon Thames (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 0 0 
			 Sutton (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 6 78 (30)— (30)— 
			 Waltham Forest (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			  
			 South East 
			 Former Berkshire (post 1 April 1998)(31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Bracknell Forest (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 6 68 
			 West Berkshire 0 0 5 55 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Reading (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 0 0 
			 Slough (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 5 75 (30)— (30)— 
			 Wokingham (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Former Buckinghamshire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Buckinghamshire (post 1 April 1997)(30)— (30)— 9 82 (30)— (30)— 6 104 
			 Milton Keynes 7 84 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Former East Sussex (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 East Sussex (post 1 April 1997) 11 83 10 73 (30)— (30)— 9 89 
			 Brighton and Hove (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 5 53 
			 Former Hampshire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Hampshire (post 1 April 1997) 28 274 21 200 18 234 18 238 
			 Portsmouth 7 81 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Southampton (30)— (30)— 7 76 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Isle of Wight 5 62 7 80 12 116 12 157 
			 Former Kent (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Kent (post 1 April 1998) 27 309 19 206 16 187 23 258 
			 Medway 6 57 7 91 (30)— (30)— 9 106 
			 Oxfordshire 16 157 11 109 7 61 8 92 
			 Surrey 10 103 15 158 14 170 13 168 
			 West Sussex 12 115 12 156 10 105 8 67 
			  
			 South West 
			 Isles of Scilly (30)— (30)— 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Bath and North East Somerset (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 City of Bristol 7 65 8 89 (30)— (30)— 5 66 
			 North Somerset (30)— (30)— 5 69 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 South Gloucestershire (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 0 0 (30)— (30)— 
			 Cornwall 19 168 15 150 19 199 16 185 
			 Former Devon (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Devon (post 1 April 1998) 19 173 13 125 18 185 17 216 
			 Plymouth 11 100 11 106 10 149 5 44 
			 Torbay 5 50 5 55 6 64 (30)— (30)— 
			 Former Dorset (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Dorset (post 1 April 1997) 10 98 12 135 7 85 8 91 
			 Poole (30)— (30)— 7 74 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Bournemouth (30)— (30)— 8 79 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 Gloucestershire 5 75 14 161 10 133 5 60 
			 Somerset 10 96 17 185 13 154 13 148 
			 Former Wiltshire (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— (31)— 
			 Wiltshire (post 1 April 1997) 5 49 7 95 6 74 14 208 
			 Swindon (30)— (30)— 5 50 (30)— (30)— (30)— (30)— 
			 England 1,176 11,971 1,162 12,597 1,029 12,147 971 12,350 
		
	
	(28) Annual value of pension payment award at the time of retirement.
	(29) Changes in the statutory regulations governing ill-health retirement came into force on 1 April 1997. To qualify for ill-health retirement benefits a teacher must now be regarded as permanently unfit to teach.
	(30) Greater than 0 or less than 5
	(31) Not applicable
	Source:
	Database of Teacher Records

Northern Ireland

Peter Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many operational Army bases there were in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years.

Adam Ingram: The information requested on the number of operational Army bases in Northern Ireland is not readily available broken down by each of the last 10 years and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	However, the following information on military sites (military bases, training areas, joint PSNI/military bases, communications sites and observation towers) is available at the dates set out in the following table:
	
		
			 Date Open sites Closed sites 
		
		
			 1 September 1994(32) 106 — 
			 22 December 1999(33) 72 34 
			 31May2004(34) 46 60 
			 11 July2005(35) 40 66 
		
	
	(32) Number of sites at announcement of 1st IRA Ceasefire.
	(33) Number of sites open/closed at publication of Government's Security Strategy Paper.
	(34) Number of sites open/closed as detailed in Second Report of the Independent Monitoring Commission.
	(35) Latest position on open/closed sites.

Recruitment

Michael Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on recruiting civilians for the UK regular forces in each quarter since 2002.

Don Touhig: The total Naval Service and RAF costs of recruiting from civilian life since financial year 2002–03 were as follows:
	
		
			   £ million 
			  Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total cost 
		
		
			 Naval Service  
			 2002–03 5.890 8.100 7.064 8.873 29.927 
			 2003–04 6.505 7.319 8.466 8.892 31.182 
			 2004–05 6.353 9.477 7.741 8.683 32.254 
			 RAF  
			 2002–03 6.717 7.142 8.394 8.757 31.010 
			 2003–04 7.303 9.863 9.041 9.356 35.563 
			 2004–05 6.263 9.132 8.420 12.251 36.066 
		
	
	The Army's recruitment costs are not held centrally on a quarterly basis; details could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. Nevertheless the annual amount spent on recruitment over the same period was:
	
		
			  £ million 
		
		
			 2002–03 62.594 
			 2003–04 66.154 
			 2004–05 74.727 
		
	
	The expenditure includes:
	Marketing costs (national and local advertising, exhibitions, specialist advertising and marketing research),
	Personnel costs (associated costs of recruiting staffs),
	Infrastructure (maintenance and rents/leases etc of Armed Force Career Offices),
	Outreach activities (cost of face-to-face recruiting).

Caravans

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what definition the Department uses of a caravan for Traveller number counts.

Yvette Cooper: The guidance issued to local authorities for the completion of the July 2005 Count of Gypsy and Traveller caravans states that the following should be recorded:
	all mobile homes, caravans, trailers and other living vehicles on Gypsy/Traveller sites and encampments, whether or not they meet the strict legal definition of a caravan;
	touring caravans on Gypsy/Traveller sites and encampments even if not lived in permanently;
	tents, benders or yurts where these are the "permanent" living accommodation of Gypsies or Travellers.

Council Tax

Sarah Teather: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total collectable council tax was in each local authority in 2004–05, net of council tax benefit.

Phil Woolas: Details of the total collectable council tax in each local authority in 2004–05, net of council tax benefit, are published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website and can be found under the heading "Information For Taxpayers—Council Tax" at: http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/ct.htm.

Emergency Fire Control Centre

Lindsay Hoyle: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what independent assessment has been made of plans for a regional emergency fire control centre in the North West.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The FiReControl project is a result of several independent reports into the Fire and Rescue Service, including: the Mott MacDonald "Future of the Fire Service Control Rooms and Communications' April 2000; "The Future of the Fire Service: reducing risks, saving lives", the Independent Review of the Fire Service by Sir George Bain; Mott Macdonald "The Future of Fire and Rescue Service Control Rooms in England and Wales: Update 2003" and Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate (HMFSI) "Best Value Review of Fire Control and Communications" 2003.
	The proposal is for a national network of fire control centres, which supports resilience requirements and delivers efficiencies. There has been no separate assessment of a regional fire control centre in the North West.

Environmental Health Officers (London)

Sarah Teather: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many food providers failed environmental health inspections in the last 12 months in each London borough.

Jane Kennedy: I have been asked to reply.
	I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that the information requested is not available centrally. A summary of enforcement action taken for each London borough during 2003 is shown in the table.
	
		
			 London borough Number of formal enforcement actions reported by London boroughs to the FSA for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 
		
		
			 Barking and Dagenham 154 
			 Barnet 1,004 
			 Bexley 857 
			 Brent 948 
			 Bromley 549 
			 Camden 998 
			 City of London 283 
			 Croydon 515 
			 Ealing 389 
			 Enfield 1,214 
			 Greenwich(36) 106 
			 Hackney 150 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 1,154 
			 Haringey 701 
			 Harrow 252 
			 Havering 578 
			 Hillingdon 695 
			 Hounslow 131 
			 Islington 795 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 315 
			 Kingston-upon-Thames 446 
			 Lambeth 1,451 
			 Lewisham 455 
			 Merton 506 
			 Newham 471 
			 Redbridge 362 
			 Richmond-upon-Thames 560 
			 Southwark 1,418 
			 Sutton 446 
			 Tower Hamlets 1,007 
			 Waltham Forest 512 
			 Wandsworth 347 
			 Westminster 1,584 
			 Total 21,353 
		
	
	(36) Greenwich submitted partial data for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003.
	Notes:
	1. Data are collected under the Food Safety Act 1990 and the European Union's Official Control Directive 89/397. Local authorities (LAs) are required by the directive to report the number of establishments receiving formal enforcement actions in a given year.
	2. "Formal enforcement action" includes written warnings, improvement notices, voluntary closures, and food seizures, surrenders or detentions, formal cautions, prosecutions, prohibition orders and emergency prohibition orders. There may have been more actions but, in accordance with EU guidance for the collection of the official control data (OCD), each type of enforcement action is only recorded once per premises per year.
	3. London boroughs undertake both food hygiene and food standards work. The data supplied to the FSA by London boroughs relating to formal enforcement actions do not differentiate between these two separate areas of food law enforcement.
	4. Data exclude inspections to vessels.
	Source:
	FSA, OCD database.

Fire Crews (Attacks)

Anne McIntosh: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps (a) have been taken and (b) are planned to increase the amount of training provided to fire crews for dynamic risk assessment; and what part such training will play in the strategy for reducing attacks on fire crews.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The amount of training required to deal with attacks on firefighters, including training in dynamic risk assessment, is a matter for fire and rescue authorities who tailor the training to meet the need. National standards for firefighters (known as the firefighter "role map") include a number of elements relating to dynamic risk assessment. I understand that the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) has set up a task and finish group, to review practice relating to assaults on firefighters and to make recommendations. Conflict management training along the lines of that given to police and ambulance workers is being piloted in South Wales and other initiatives are being considered by the CFOA Group.

Mobile Phone Masts

Stephen Hammond: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria were used in making the decision to exempt the installation of mobile phone masts up to 15 metres high from the normal planning permission requirements.

Yvette Cooper: The permitted development rights granting general planning permission for telecommunications apparatus below 15 metres were introduced by the "Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1985".
	In 2000, the Stewart Report recommended that all base stations, including those up to 15 metres, should be subject to the normal planning process in order to improve local consultation. The arrangements we put in place following the Stewart Report provide for the same consultation on base stations up to 15 metres in height as is required by full planning permission.

Benefit Fraud

Stephen Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total budget for the benefit fraud hotline was for each year since the service commenced.

James Plaskitt: The available information is in the table.
	
		National benefit fraud hotline budget allocation
		
			  £ 
		
		
			 2001–02 1,086,000 
			 2002–03 959,277 
			 2003–04 957,977 
			 2004–05 1,192,843 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Figures include goods, services and staffing costs.
	2. The national benefit fraud hotline (NBFH) commenced in August 1996. Information around budget allocation is available only from year ending 2001–02. Prior to this NBFH fell under "BA Security", and figures on funding and budget costs are no longer available.
	3. The operational costs of administering the national benefit fraud hotline include the costs of administering the report-a-cheat-online service. These costs cannot be separated.
	Source:
	National Intelligence Unit and Resource Management and IT

Child Support Agency

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what definition the Child Support Agency uses of the term sensitive case; how many cases the Sensitive Case Team has dealt with in each year since its establishment; how many times unauthorised access to sensitive cases has been detected; and how many checks have been made on sensitive cases.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Stephen Geraghty. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

Child Support Agency

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress there has been in agreeing a clear definition of system availability for the new child support system with EDS.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Stephen Geraghty. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
	Letter from Stephen Geraghty to Mr. David Laws, dated 14 July 2005
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what problems there have been agreeing a clear definition of system availability for the new child support system with EDS.
	System availability is covered clearly in the Child Support Reform contract between the Department and EDS. Within that contract reference is made to when the system is not available. "Unavailability" is defined as users being unable to access the system or unable to work correctly because the system is not working to agreed specification (requirements). The "system" is defined as all of the listed components of the EDS IT solution for Child Support Reform.
	I hope you find this response helpful.

Earnings-related Pensions

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 14 June 2005, Official Report, column 260W on earnings-related pensions, 
	(1)  what assumptions he made about (a) income brought to account for pension credit and (b) pension credit take up in projecting the future cost of pension credit;
	(2)  what the estimated costs (a) in real terms and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product are of (i) the basic state pension, (ii) Serps/S2P, (iii) pension credit and (iv) other pension benefits in (A) 2010, (B) 2020, (C) 2030, (D) 2040 and (E) 2050, consistent with the projections of extra cost.

Stephen Timms: The information is in the table.
	For the purposes of pension credit estimates pensioner incomes are assumed to rise in line with earnings in the long-term. Take-up rates of pension credit are held constant from 2009 onwards within demographic group (defined by age, gender and marital status).
	
		Change in expenditure for over 65's (Great Britain only)
		
			  2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 
		
		
			 Basic state pension (extra costs) 18 38 69 109 151 
			 Percentage GDP 1.3 2.1 3.2 4.2 4.7 
			 Pension credit (savings) 8 12 19 27 37 
			 Percentage GDP 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.2 
			 Winter fuel payments (savings) 1 1 2 2 2 
			 Percentage GDP 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 
			 Total additional expenditure 10 25 50 80 113 
			 Percentage GDP 0.7 1.4 2.3 3.1 3.5 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. This table shows a breakdown of additional costs or savings.
	2. Figures are in £ billion in 2005–06 price terms, and consistent with 2005 budget long term assumptions.
	3. Totals may not sum due to rounding
	4. No change in expenditure is assumed to occur in the State Second Pension.
	5. Long term projections of expenditure (for the United Kingdom) on pensioners under the current system are published on the departmental internet site.

Housing Benefit

Paul Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
	(1)  what assessment he has made of whether private sector landlords in the housing benefit pathfinders have reduced the rents which they charge in order (a) to secure more tenants and (b) to keep existing tenants; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  how many and what percentage of those living in the private rented sector and receiving housing benefit directly have built up arrears in rental payments in the pathfinder areas;
	(3)  what assessment he has made of the effects of the introduction of (a) local housing allowance and (b) direct payments in the housing benefit pathfinder areas on private sector landlords' participation in the market; and if he will make a statement;
	(4)  what assessment he has made of whether people moved to housing benefit pathfinder areas to take advantage of local housing allowances; and if he will make a statement.

James Plaskitt: The Department has commissioned a comprehensive, independent evaluation of the local housing allowance (LHA) pathfinders. This will provide information on the impact of the LHA, and the reactions of claimants and landlords to the LHA and direct payments.
	The first interim findings of the evaluation are being published over the summer and the results of the final evaluation will be published at the end of next year.
	In April we published "Delivering the Local Housing Allowance: A summary of the early experiences of implementing the Local Housing Allowance in the nine Pathfinder areas" reporting on the operational experience after six months of live running of the LHA. A copy is available in the Library.
	Further reports and summaries covering the early experiences of claimants and landlords will be published shortly.

Housing Benefit

Paul Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact the introduction of the local housing allowances in the housing benefit pathfinders has had on the average length of time taken to process new claims.

James Plaskitt: Isolating the impact of the local housing allowances on the average length of time taken to process new claims is not possible as processing times are influenced by a number of factors many of which are independent of the local housing allowance.
	Average processing times in the private rented sector have been improving in the majority of Pathfinder areas since the introduction of the local housing allowance,
	as shown in the table.
	There has been some reduction in the average processing times for all local authorities in the recent periods compared to the annual average in 2003–04.
	
		Average processing times for private sector new claims in Pathfinder areas and across all LA's Calendar days
		
			  Private new claim 
			 Pathfinder area 2003–04 2004–05 
		
		
			 Blackpool 32 26 
			 Brighton and Hove 35 35 
			 Conwy 44 33 
			 Coventry 63 57 
			 Edinburgh 107 90 
			 Leeds 33 80 
			 Lewisham 54 36 
			 North East Lincolnshire 53 36 
			 Teignbridge 42 33 
			 All LAs ( including non-pathfinder) 58 52 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. The reported averages are weighted averages (by new claim workload).
	2. The 2003–04 average figures for Pathfinder areas are derived from all four quarters data.
	3. The 2004–05 average figures for Pathfinder areas are derived from first three quarters data. Fourth quarter data is not yet available.
	4. Leeds recently had problems with its software system which had a negative impact on the processing times for 2004–05.
	5. Wherever data is missing, we have used the figures available nearest to that quarter.
	6. Private sector claims includes local housing allowance (LHA) and non LHA deregulated claims and regulated new claims (excludes housing association new claims)
	Source:
	DWP administrative data for Pathfinder areas and HBMIS.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Julie Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people aged over 50 years claimed jobseeker's allowance in financial years (a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03, (c) 2003–04 and (d) 2004–05; how many of these (i) were eligible for new deal 50 plus and (ii) participated in new deal 50 plus; and what percentage of claimants (A) remained on jobseeker's allowance (B) found work (C) moved onto income support and (D) moved onto incapacity benefit in each case.

James Plaskitt: The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is in the following tables.
	
		Jobseeker's allowance claimants aged 50 and overby duration of claim(37)
		
			  All claimants Under six months Six months and over(38) 
		
		
			 2001–02 400,100 238,200 161,900 
			 2002–03 393,200 235,600 157,600 
			 2003–04 379,600 227,100 152,600 
			 2004–05 340,700 199,100 141,600 
		
	
	(37) If the claim has ended in the year, age has been calculated at the end of the claim. If the claim is ongoing at the end of the year, age has been calculated at the end of the year.
	(38) People who have been claiming jobseeker's allowance for six months or more are eligible for new deal 50 plus. Additionally around 15 per cent. of those people claiming jobseeker's allowance for less than six months may also be eligible for new deal 50 plus as a result of another qualifying benefit claim preceding their jobseeker's allowance claim.
	Notes:
	1. Figures are for Great Britain and are rounded to the nearest 100, totals may not sum due to rounding.
	2. Years are defined as 1 March to 28/29 February in each year.
	3. A person is only counted once each year regardless of how many times they have flowed on and off jobseeker's allowance in that year, but they may appear in more than one year. The claim with the longest duration within each year has been used.
	4. Due to late notification of commencements on the jobseeker's allowance payment system (JSAPS) for the most recent quarter i.e. to the end of February 2005, the total number of claims for 2004–05 can be expected to increase.
	5. Durations for claims that have not ended by the end of the relevant financial year have been calculated at that point in time. Due to only having data up to the end of February 2005, the number of claimants in the six months and over category is an underestimate for the 2004–05 year i.e. anyone starting after 1 September 2004 whose claim is still live at the year end has had a duration of less than six months calculated. As more data comes in over the following months the durations of these claims will become over six months.
	Source:
	Department for Work and Pensions Information Directorate. 5 per cent. samples subject to a degree of sampling variation.
	
		Number of people moving into employment throughnew deal 50 plus
		
			   April to March  People claiming employment credit(39) People moving into work through new deal 50 plus(40) 
		
		
			 2001–02 33,950 — 
			 2002–03 31,080 — 
			 2003–04 — 22,160 
			 2004–05 — 17,070 
		
	
	(39) Until April 2003 new deal 50 plus figures were measured in terms of employment credit starts. Those with gross personal income of more than £15,000 a year were not entitled to the employment credit on entering work.
	(40) On 6 April 2003 the new deal 50 plus employment credit was replaced by the back to work element of the working tax credit. Figures do not include people claiming the back to work element of working tax credit who have not had assistance from jobcentre plus.
	Source:
	Information Directorate, DWP

Pathways to Work Pilots

Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the reports that (a) have been and (b) are scheduled to be published as part of the evaluation of the Pathways to Work pilots.

Margaret Hodge: The Department has published the following reports as part of the evaluation of the Pathways to Work pilots.
	"Incapacity Benefit Reforms—Early findings from qualitative research", the National Centre for Social Research, DWP report no. 202 (published September 2004). "Incapacity Benefit Reforms—The Personal Adviser Role and Practices", the National Centre for Social Research, DWP report no. 212 (published November 2004). "IB Reforms Pilot: Findings from a longitudinal panel of clients", Social Policy Research Unit, DWP report no. 259 (published 7 July 2005).
	These reports are available in the Library.
	The Department is scheduled to publish another report in September 2005:
	"Incapacity Benefit Reforms—The Personal Adviser Role and Practices—stage 2", the National Centre for Social Research.
	The programme of evaluation continues through until 2008. Further reports will be published in the DWP research series.

Pension Service/Benefits Agency

Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many open days have been held in the last 12 months for staff and volunteers of independent advice services providing assistance to claimants by (a) the Benefits Agency and (b) the Pensions Service; how many people have attended such open days; and if he will make a statement on (i) feedback received and (ii) resultant action.

Stephen Timms: Jobcentre Plus, which brought together the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service in 2002, conducts approximately 1,560 open days over a 12 month period. These vary widely in size and target audience but are all aimed at getting people back to work, either by helping them look for the right types of employment or to provide the more practical help they may need when finding a job. Local service teams of the Pension Service have attended a number of local events with staff and volunteers from independent advice services, aimed at maximising take-up of benefits and services for older people. Detailed information on the number of open days held by Jobcentre Plus or the Pension Service, the number of people attending and feedback obtained is not held centrally.

Pensioners/Benefits

Patrick McFadden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many state retirement pensioners there are in Wolverhampton, South-East; and what percentage this is of the total electorate in the constituency.

Stephen Timms: As at 31 September 2004, there were 13,100 recipients of the state pension in the Wolverhampton, South-East parliamentary constituency of whom 5,100 were males and 8,000 were females. This represents around 24 per cent. of the electorate.
	Notes:
	1. Recipient figures are taken from a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a high degree of sampling variation.
	2. Parliamentary constituencies are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant Office for National Statistics postcode directory.
	Sources:
	1. Number of recipients—IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample as at September 2004.
	2. 2005 electoral data—Wolverhampton city council's website.